Charles Krauthammer rants
today about Dover and Kansas, but misrepresents much of what Kansas did, and avoids the harder questions. I could not agree with him more that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, and all the leading intelligent design theorists agree with that point too, so why is he suggesting that they don't? Because he is writing out of ignorance and knocking down a straw man.
The main thing Kansas did was to add
to its science standards scientific facts that macroevolutionary theory has a hard time explaining. It does not decrease what kids learn about evolution.
Good science recognizes that theories are provisional and are always open to testing against the facts, even if Krauthammer thinks one of them is the most "elegant" theory in the world. If it is such a wonderfully elegant theory, surely there is no harm in testing it by asking how well it explains the Cambrian Explosion. (Not very well at all.)
Instead of repeating his ad hominem attacks and knocking down straw men, why can't Krauthammer answer this:
What justification is there for insisting that students be taught the evidence for evolutionary theory but banning any evidence against it, like the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, which all mainstream scientists acknowledge? What possible basis can there be for banning this information, when many people view this as extremely relevant to evaluating macroevolutionary theory?